top | item 36908253

(no title)

johnday | 2 years ago

That's not really fair. systemd does a lot more, and with good reason (among other reasons: there are many, many economies that can be made when "booting" and "managing" services happens in the same hat)

discuss

order

javajosh|2 years ago

>That's not really fair

Uh, what? It's not fair to say that a vastly more complicated thing evolved from a simple thing? That's how it always happens - each step seems reasonable, and justified, but you look at what those countless rational decisions added up to, and bam. That's the complexity everyone says they hate. In technology, in government, in basically everything.

(Oddly, culture seems to be okay deprecating old bits of culture; the brain is inherently finite so we run in cycles and epicycles of cultural fashion that remains roughly at the same level of complexity.)

bananapub|2 years ago

what a weird take - the "complexity" of sysv has to include the random shell scripts people write for /etc/init.d of hugely variable quality, and the tooling like start-stop-daemon, and the administrative complexity of not actually being able to reliably shut down (needs a process group) or start up service (needs dependencies).

it is much simpler for some people to write a dependency-based init system and then for my OS to write dependencies for the OS services then for me to say "DependsOn = network.service" to permanently avoid racing dhcp or whatever.